Town Square

Trying to milk Stanford for money

Looks like another example of the council trying to use different standards when dealing with Stanford.

Of particular note is this quotation from Drekmeier:

"This is something they can afford," said Council Member Peter Drekmeier. "

Drekmeier, who prior to his days on the council was an noted Stanford basher, seems to think that Stanford is cash cow that the city of Palo Alto can milk to make up for their ineptitude in managing their resources and money.

By the way, I wonder if anyone bothered to ask Benest, Baum and the rest of our city leaders where they planned to build the affordable housing with the money they would have gotten from Stanford.

Posted by Surprised citizen
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 13, 2007 at 10:35 am

They were closing a loophole, not milking anybody. Most interesting is that Judy Kleinberg and Bern Beecham voted against it. Maybe conflicts of interest aren't about cups of coffee after all. There's a little more to it. This is a perfect example.

Posted by Not so fast
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 13, 2007 at 10:53 am

It is convenient to call it a loophole by the powers that be--it makes it sound like Stanford is getting away with something.
You will note from today's article the following:

"Currently the hospital is exempted from paying housing "in-lieu fees" because developments providing public benefits were granted an exception in the city's municipal code in 1984. The fees were initially imposed to help cover housing needs generated by developments bringing new employment to the city."

This was an exemption that was granted to all Stanford Hospital by the city in 1984, it is not a loophole.

Posted by Not so fast
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 14, 2007 at 6:06 am

Howard, Forgetting that Stanford is mandated by state law to seismically upgrade it's hospital and that Stanford Hospital and Lucille Packard Hospital are world leaders in providing health care--the question as I asked before, is where would you build this affordable housing that you want Stanford to pay for?
You also forget, Howard, that without Stanford Palo Alto would be Gary, Indiana.

Posted by Puzzled
a resident of Terman Middle School
on Mar 14, 2007 at 6:22 pm

I thought the city attorney disputed this statement by McCown, Stanford's development coordinator attorney:
"Research around the state showed that most cities that charge housing fees either exempt hospitals or leave them to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, McCown said."

Since Kleinberg describes herself as a housing advocate, this vote is really hard to figure out. Anyone understand it?

Posted by Not so fast
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 15, 2007 at 7:42 am

If Baum disputed McCowan's statement is what not reported in the news, I think.
Maybe Kleinberg realized that assessing the fee would require Palo Alto to actually have to build the affordable housing and that would have opened a new can of worms as to where to put it --plus the usual dealings with the "too much traffic", "not enough schools" crowd.